PŘÍLOHA Č. 4

vzorový anglický text

3. Practical points for the programming period 2014-20

The intention of this section is to provide (future) programme managers some pragmatic ideas on what is required for monitoring and evaluation of cohesion policy and what should be done when taking into account the ideas and principles sketched out in the previous section of this paper and what has already been presented in the 5th Cohesion Report.

3.1 Programming

Programmes with a clear identification of changes sought, concentrated on a limited number of interventions are a decisive condition for efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation during the whole programming period.

3.1.1 Clear objectives as key condition for effective monitoring and evaluation

Each priority (sub-priority) should identify the socio-economic phenomenon that it intends to change – the result - and one (or some very few) result indicators that best express this intended change. Each priority should express the direction of the desired change (e.g., areduction or growth of the value of result indicator). Setting a quantified target or a range for the addressed result indicator or the contribution of the programme might be possible in selected cases.

Each result indicator needs a baseline value. A baseline is the value of an result indicator at the beginning of the programming period (for example, the number of start-ups per year for apriority that intends to drive up the number of start-ups in a region). Information about the activity of a programme in the past does not present a baseline value (for example the number of supported start-ups in the past).

Annex 2 lists examples of result indicators for different thematic priorities. It should be noted that these are structured on the basis of the EU2020 Strategy and demonstrate credible intermediate steps which show the link between actions on the ground and the EU2020 headline targets.

3.1.2 Provisions for monitoring in Operational Programmes

Output indicators should cover all parts of a programme. The indicators first need to capture the content of individual interventions. Within this frame, Member States should use indicators from the list of common indicators whenever appropriate (see annex 1).

The programme should set targets for output indicators for the effective end of the programming period. In most cases, this would mean to set targets for 2022. Baselines for output indicators would not be required.

Output indicators should be linked to categories of expenditure.

3.2 Ex ante evaluation of Operational Programmes

An ex ante evaluation, as a rule under the responsibility of the future managing authority, should appraise the following elements in order to improve the quality of operational programmes.

  • the justification for the thematic priorities selected, and their consistency with the EU2020 strategy, the Common Strategic Framework and partnership contract;
  • the relevance and clarity of the proposed result indicators and output indicators;
  • the plausibility of the targets for the indicators and for the explanation concerning the contribution of the outputs to the results;
  • the consistency between the allocated financial resources and the targets for output indicators;
  • the administrative capacity for management and implementation of the operational programme;
  • the quality of the monitoring system, and of how necessary data will be gathered to carry out evaluations.

3.3 Monitoring

3.3.1 Monitoring of Operational Programmes – the annual report

Discussions of the monitoring committee and annual reports are key elements of the monitoring of an Operational programme. The use of quantitative information is one of the tools. To date annual reports have followed a "checklist approach". The key change for the future would be that the reports should analyse the information presented.

The annual report should

-provide information about the implementation of a programme. Besides financial data, this could require providing cumulative values for output indicators, starting from the second year of implementation. Both actual and expected values would be necessary. Transmission of such data is an obligatory part of annual reports.

-If possible, report progress towards the desired result. This means to provide values for the result indicators of programmes taken either from statistics or provided by information sources specific to the priority such as specific surveys, at particular points in time. Note that such values encompass the contribution of the programme and the contribution of other factors.

-provide a qualitative analysis of the contribution of the programme towards the change of result indicators, using financial data, output indicators and managerial knowledge gained during the implementation. When they become available, evaluations will provide additional information and insights to be used here.

-analyse why the objectives are being achieved or not and to judge if priorities and the programme are on track or not.

3.4 Evaluation during the programming period

Evaluation during the programming period should follow the evaluation plan adopted at the beginning of the programming period, reflecting and adapting to the changing needs of the individual programmes.

Ideally, all three types of evaluation –theory-based evaluation, counterfactual evaluation and implementation evaluation - would play their role. Implementation evaluations supporting the smooth delivery of a programme are more likely to be useful in the early stages of implementation. Evaluation capturing the effect of priorities and looking into their theory of change are more likely to occur at a later stage. This can include an examination of the impacts of similar interventions in a previous programming period.

Each priority should be covered at least once by an impact evaluation.

A summary evaluation in 2020 could wrap up main evaluation findings and key information from the monitoring system. One of the main purposes would be feeding the ex post evaluation under the lead responsibility of the European Commission.

3.5 The evaluation plan

It is the purpose of an evaluation plan to improve the quality of evaluations carried out during the programming period.

3.5.1 Establishing an evaluation plan

After adoption of the Operational Programme, the Member State or region would adopt anevaluation plan. The plan would be sent to the Commission for information.

3.5.2 Elements of an evaluation plan

An evaluation plan at national or regional level could include the following elements:

-indicative list of evaluations to be undertaken,their subject and rationale;

-methods to be used for the individual evaluation and their data requirements;

-Provisions that data required for certain evaluations will be available or will be collected;

-a timetable;

-human resources involved;

-the indicative budget for implementation of the plan.

3.5.3 Annual review of evaluation plan

The Monitoring Committee would review the evaluation plan once per year and adopt necessary amendments. Note that the existence of an evaluation plan would not exclude the possibility of ad hoc evaluations.

3.6 Ex post evaluation

The purpose of the ex post evaluation would be to obtain a view of the programming period as a whole. It should be able to tell what has been achieved and answer the question if it was worth to be done.

The ex post evaluation could be a responsibility of Commission in collaboration with Member States to be finished by 2022. The ex post evaluation would be facilitated by evaluations of Member States and Commission during the programming period, especially by the Member States' summary of evaluations during period in 2020.

3.7 Transparency

All evaluation should be made public, preferably via internet. English abstracts are recommended to allow for an European exchange of evaluation findings.